My conjecture is that space lies at the low frequency end of the electromagnetic spectrum, and mass lies at the high frequency end of the spectrum. Inertia is imperceptible and builds up very slowly until the frequency hits the gamma range. Inertia builds up rapidly in the gamma range.
.

Einstein uses the speed of light as a “stable frame of reference “. The speed of light depends on the properties of space through which it travels. This is as it should be per classical mechanics. It is the property of space that needs to be explored further at this point. Neither SR nor QM does that.

Einstein is correct in establishing a constant relationship between space and time through the “speed of light”. It is actually a constant ratio between wavelength (a property of space) and period (a property of time). But beyond that Einstein gets into something more or less subjective.

Einstein gets into using each part of the universe as a frame of reference to examine the motion of other parts. This gets very confusing very fast because there are infinite frames of references all moving relative to each other.

Furthermore, Einstein relies on the sense of vision as the “absolute sense”. This is because he is using the speed of light as his “stable frame of reference.” This is where Einstein enters into subjectivity.

To me relativity makes sense only when each part is examined relative to the whole. That is the basis of the concept of fraction in mathematics. We should be examining the motion of each part of the universe relative to the motion of universe as a whole. But Einstein does not do that. He assumes vision as the “absolute sense” whereas it is simply one of many physical senses. This is where subjectivity in the theory of relativity comes in.

It is the universe as a whole that provides a stable reference frame. This can be treated adequately by the mental sense of abstraction, which is not limited by the “speed of light”. This reference frame is not absolute, but it is stable enough for the purposes of physics.

The next activity in Theoretical physics should be to examine the relationship between spacetime and energy as taken up in Disturbance theory.

Another misleading path are the illustrations depicting a gravity well as a marble sitting on a flat rubber sheet. The problems seem obvious to me in that 1. The illustration shows the lines of force of gravity in two dimensions, and 2. The lines of force bend down away from the massive object rather than directly toward the center of the massive object.

” The illustration shows the lines of force of gravity in two dimensions.”

I have always wondered if anyone else noticed this obvious error in the depiction of gravity bending space. This visual depiction has merit to those who are new to the basic idea, but can lead one’s thought in a direction which can prevent someone from getting a more accurate idea or understanding of the principle.

I still stick to the idea that mass collects, rather than bends space, although the effects are similar but not identical. The word ‘collects’ is not perfect either, since it can refer to quantity and can infer a rate of motion. Space is not mass and a quantity of space would not follow the same rules or even the basic thoughts as a quantity of mass.

Mass ‘collects’ space at a rate of force, rather than at a speed or cubic footage. As mass or energy pass near a massive object, it follows the space that is being collected as a rate of force being applied to the object passing by. A stationary object being held up against the gravity is being constantly accelerated through the space being ‘collected’ by the massive object. It does not gain energy by being accelerated through this space. That is one of the principles which can place a confusion in thinking along this line.

Gaining energy through acceleration is completely relative. An object can be accelerated for a time. Once the accelerating force is removed, the object has not changed in any way, except in its relative motion to some other object. To one object it may appear to gain speed. To another object it will appear to lose speed and energy. To itself, no change in motion is apparent, only the motion of other objects. All three points of view are completely correct, in their own frame of reference.

And what are these “lines of force” of gravity? Well, the earlier question should be “what is space?” We are going in the direction of calling space a substance but we don’t know what that substance is. Light has substance without mass, therefore space may be a substance without mass as well.

Gravity is defined as a force which attracts a body toward the center of the earth. While this is analogous and the effect very measurable, I believe this is a poor definition.

I like better your “equilibrium seeking” quality of the disturbance theory in space as you wrote above, “Such sharp gradients between mass locations must smooth themselves out to lower the entropy.”

“Frames of reference” are important for understanding those particular frames relative to other frames of reference; However, the frame of reference of physics is the entire universe. This illustration once again is analogous but limited because of mankind’s limited observational ability.

Light seems to travel at the same speed in all directions. Therefore, no Ether frame seems to exist. So, there is no “ether wind” but this not preclude a medium for electromagnetic waves.

The Lorentz factor depends upon the use of Pythagorean Theorem. This theorem applies only in rigid space bound to matter as used in MM experiment. The Pythagorean Theorem may not apply in the space away from matter as assumed by Einstein.

Regarding Mercury’s precession problem, it appears that when two heavenly bodies move close to each other, the sharp frequency gradients around them (due to their mass) in space seem to interact and lock into each other momentarily like two moving gears.

Per Disturbance theory, mass comes about due to the collapse of very high disturbance frequency. The collapsed nucleus has to be spinning very fast as the linear kinetic energy of disturbance turns into rotational kinetic energy.

Around this spinning nucleus is the rotational electronic field, and around that is the electromagnetic field gradually curving away into becoming linear.

The nucleus, and the electronic field around it, shall be spherical. There will be a sharp frequency gradient between nucleus and the electronic field.

Both nuclear and electronic fields shall reside within an electromagnetic field. Another sharp frequency gradient shall exist between the electronic and the electromagnetic fields.

When two mass approach each other these sharp frequency gradients interact with each other. This brings us back to looking at Maxwell’s equations in figuring out this interaction.

Disturbance theory postulates attractive force between masses because the frequency gradients try to smooth themselves out through such interaction to lower the entropy.

Gravity field is simply the frequency gradients in the disturbances in space.

There is very high frequency gradient closer to the surface of the earth because of its mass. A very high energy gamma ray may lose some energy in moving away from earth because it is moving through a frequency gradient of high to low frequency. This may cause gamma ray to decrease in frequency and its wavelength to lengthen.

The gamma ray is a disturbance moving through frequency gradient in space. What is the nature of interaction here?

Besides, how do electric and magnetic fields interact with each other causing the propagation of disturbance?

To try and imagine this disturbance theory model, to discuss the notion of undisturbed space, possibly we would find something like this beyond the outer edge of the Big Bang disturbance? (This requires another assumption that space is not a product of the Big Bang.)

The research into interstellar medium (ISM) concerns itself with the matter in that space. Interestingly to me is how much is known about that matter and that it is already graded as follows: “The interstellar medium is composed of multiple phases, distinguished by whether matter is ionic, atomic, or molecular, and the temperature and density of the matter.”-Wikipedia.

Because ISM is graded and because Disturbance Theory is graded I can see how if the math can be used to describe a consistent correlation between two, if it can be written and if it can hold up, then a new and improved interpretive paradigm could be in the works. I support and encourage your direction of study Vinay. I wish I could be helpful.

(1) I do not trust the math of either the theory of relativity, or of quantum mechanics. They are trial and error kind of patch ups that have drifted far from reality and have become meaningless.

(2) I do not expect such math to lead to any fundamental discoveries in theoretical physics because these are mathematical models that are modeling subjectivity and not reality.

(3) The ideas of distance and duration cannot be used separately from each other, and if they are used they just become subjective beyond classical limits. I would rather use the idea of frequency that scales up and down the wavelength and period in a constant ratio.

(4) For now I am taking ‘c’ as pretty much a constant for frequencies below the gamma range. I do not think that ‘c’ remains a constant in gamma range of frequencies.

(5) The observation about atomic clocks is quite interesting, but the use of space and time in separate units cannot be trusted. I need to understand the atomic clock phenomenon in terms of frequencies. The frequency of disturbed space shall be higher closer to earth.

“(1) I do not trust the math of either the theory of relativity, or of quantum mechanics. They are trial and error kind of patch ups that have drifted far from reality and have become meaningless.”

You may be correct but not because math becomes meaningless but rather because the enormous quantity of the disturbances become difficult to keep under one’s pencil. To imagine this, I sit quietly in my office and listen. There are many sounds to count and to keep track of even in my relatively quiet space of air. Then I imagine that I can correlate this to EMR disturbances within any cm3 of space. I imagine what if I can “hear” (observe) every radio signal in my vicinity like my radio can. And what if I can see the disturbances of the waves of light streaming through my window mixing with my lamp and computer monitor. When I then seem to get a sense of these interactions, my space becomes noisy and it is hard to imagine keeping track of all the interactions (interferences) enough to describe them all with maths.

It would be interesting to see how Einstein’s Theory of Relativity has provided solutions to some real problems, and how we can address the same problems more accurately with Disturbance theory approach.

Yes, some good ones to apply disturbance theory to would be how the gravity of massive objects bends space; how much time lag is produced by time dilation between GPS satellites and earth; also the gravity and existence of black holes. These would be good ones to use disturbance theory to calculate and predict.

“You are an expert at the physics of the small. Now you need to tackle other phenomena that does not fit into “all is EM”, because all you said is that ordinary matter is essentially complex systems of EM oscillation energy and empty space is full of random EM oscillations. Which I totally agree. Continue to build on that.

“It is not an easy task to build a framework that is a basis for the physics of the small PLUS gravity, dark energy, inertia, refractive index, phonons, chemical bonds, electric charge, emergence of mass, existence of the Oort cloud, dark matter halos, cosmic flows, beginning of the Universe, cosmological constant, etc.”

,

My response:

I am not an expert at anything except at noticing logical inconsistencies. But there also I can go wrong easily. I am simply pointing out what doesn’t make sense to me. That has led me to the Disturbance theory, which is sketchy at best at the moment.

All may be EM, but it undergoes some incredible transformations as the frequency increases. The electronic field around the nucleus of an atom is simply a high frequency (beginning of gamma range) EM field that has turned rotational. The nucleus at the center of this electronic field is an ultra-high frequency region within the electronic field that has collapsed.

All this requires math to make sure it is all consistent, and that has to be done slowly and systematically as you suggested.

I believe that the concept of disturbance of space (which is much more than just EM) is capable of explaining gravity, dark energy, inertia, charges, etc. I am getting almost ready to jump into math. I am looking forward to a lot of study.

I have the following Logic model to explain the beginning of the universe.

(1) In my view an electromagnetic wave is a disturbance in space that is continuous. An electromagnetic wave is not made of discrete photons.

(2) Discreteness appears only during energy interactions and not during spatial propagation. A photon is an idea created to describe the nature of energy interactions.

(3) A photon has existence only in the context of energy. It does not have existence in the context of space.

(4) It is only when a photon is thought of as a particle in space that the confusion of particle-wave duality comes about. In my view, that is an unwarranted assumption.

(5) It is not photon but the electromagnetic wave that has momentum, velocity and direction.

(6) What happens during “photon absorption” needs to be clarified in terms of the frequency of electromagnetic wave.

(7) Do we know the nature of the force that propagates the electromagnetic wave? How do electric and magnetic fields interact with each other during EM wave propagation? What is the fabric of space like?

(8) By having the wrong understanding of photon derails all subsequent understanding.

“(1) In my view an electromagnetic wave is a disturbance in space that is continuous. An electromagnetic wave is not made of discrete photons.”

This is the difference between a projectile which must travel mostly undeterred for billions of years in space, or a disturbance in space which must travel for billions of years. It is said that a photon generated in the core of the Sun must bang and ricochet around for thousands of years before making its way to the surface where it can be released into solar-space.

These concepts are difficult for me to imagine. I am going to suppose that this is because of the orders of magnitude of things. For instance, the orders of magnitude of sun to galaxy is great, so is the magnitude difference from galaxy to known universe even greater. My sense of billions of years being a long time is probably incorrect.

My favorite analogy of the relationship of mass to energy, is that energy can be likened to an idea. Mass can be compared to a postulate, or decision. Where a postulate can be considered as an idea that has solidified, made permanent and unchanging unless acted upon by other ideas or decisions.
So it is with mass and energy.

This analogy as with all metaphors, has merit and errors. This one, for now, works for me, and may inspire agreement or disagreement. Either way, it is an additional way of looking.
Mark

The Maxwell theory predicts that the energy of a light wave depends only on its intensity, not on its frequency; nevertheless, several independent types of experiments show that the energy imparted by light to atoms depends only on the light’s frequency, not on its intensity.

V:”The Maxwell theory predicts that the energy of a light wave depends only on its intensity, not on its frequency…There seems to be a hidden secret here”

There is no longer a secret here. What you have stated is the mid 19th century idea that was the “ultraviolet catastrophe” problem of the time. However, it was Planck who solved the “catastrophe” with the idea that energy should be proportional to frequency, not intensity.

In more modern times a new “ultraviolet catastrophe” has emerged. This “catastrophe” is also known as the “hierarchy problem” and comes about because of the huge energy discrepancy between Standard Model particle predictions and the upper end of the energy scale as defined by the Planck wavelength. Basically, if you apply a similar logic to Planck’s idea (that energy is proportional to frequency) that you were earlier applying to Maxwell’s idea (that energy is proportional to intensity), you might predict that just keeping on increasing energy should keep on causing new particles. This isn’t, however, the case. Just like there were limits to how much UV was emitted from hotter and hotter objects, so too is there limits on particle masses (energies) that can be created.

Various models have been proposed for the solution to the hierarchy problem, but as yet – in physics circles, at least – no one has an effective solution.

This is also the problem that will put an upper bound on what you can do with your disturbance theory.

I have been studying wave theory. In all cases, energy seems to be related to intensity. It did come as a surprise to find frequency related to energy in case of electromagnetic wave. What is the reason for that?

I think that the answer seems to lie in the phenomenon of resonance. That is what seems be going on in the photoelectric effect. It is just my conjecture, but a photon seems to be nothing more than a resonance phenomenon. This may be the case with blackbody radiation as well.

V:”I have been studying wave theory. In all cases, energy seems to be related to intensity. ”

A linear sort of logic might lead you there but experimental evidence won’t agree. Electrons around an atom emit photons when they drop from a higher orbital to a lower one. In the case of a laser, the drop from the higher orbital to the lower one produces a monochromatic light (single frequency, single color, single energy per quanta). Intensity comes from the number of quanta in the laser beam, not just the color.

Since the various phenomenon produced by resonances is at the heart of my work with alloys and metallic crystalline structures, this line of discussion catches my interest.
On the surface, it would seem that physical vibrations either applied or induced into metals are causing an increase in the particles ‘bounce’ between each other.(heat) But that is not always the case. When certain combinations of sounds are applied to metals at certain temps and certain pressures, there are points where the metals change structure and absorb the energy being applied. A temperature drop of 17 deg. C has been recorded along with an increased density of over 5%.
Strangely, it required 310 deg C above the first transition temp to reverse the effect, while very little degradation of the materiel strength occurred up to nearly it’s second transition temp. MSFC here in Hville is still trying to figure that one out. They just can’t understand the relationship between energy, mass, and the tone scale. And in my opinion, Ron never fully got the idea of operating on several complementing and conflicting purposes simultaneously.
The point being that there are several things going on as light energy travels through space. There is more than one postulate at play.
Mark

I don’t know anything about Little’s work. I have the following comments to make though.

(1) I do not trust the math of either the theory of relativity, or of quantum mechanics. They are trial and error kind of patch ups that have drifted far from reality and have become meaningless.

(2) I do not expect such math to lead to any fundamental discoveries in theoretical physics because these are mathematical models that are modeling subjectivity and not reality.

(3) The ideas of distance and duration cannot be used separately from each other, and if they are used they just become subjective beyond classical limits. I would rather use the idea of frequency that scales up and down the wavelength and period in a constant ratio.

(4) For now I am taking ‘c’ as pretty much a constant for frequencies below the gamma range. I do not think that ‘c’ remains a constant in gamma range of frequencies.

(5) The observation about atomic clocks is quite interesting, but the use of space and time in separate units cannot be trusted. I need to understand the atomic clock phenomenon in terms of frequencies. The frequency of disturbed space shall be higher close to earth.

(7) Any bending of “space” implies presence of inertia. Undisturbed space has no inertia. But disturbed space has a frequency that supposedly imparts inertia.

(8) The higher is the frequency the greater is the inertia. I would expect gamma radiation to bend a lot more than visible light. I don’t know if any data exists to confirm this.

(9) It would be interesting to see how Einstein’s Theory of Relativity has provided solutions to some real problems, and how we can address the same problems more accurately with Disturbance theory approach.

The direction of Little’s argument: If the particles are assumed to be particles, and if they follow straight lines between the slits and the screen, there is only one conclusion that can be drawn: the trajectories depend on the screen position. If one moves the screen the particles follow different trajectories.But this could only happen if something is moving from the screen to the oncoming particles to affect their motion. Without some real, physical process to explain the screen dependence, one would be left with the need for a nonlocal interaction to account for the dependence. If one rejects nonlocality, then this experiment constitutes direct observational evidence of the reverse motion of something from the screen to the particles.

This is what I was thinking of when I wrote that your resonance idea resonates with Little’s. Is this similar or can it be similar to what you propose?

It boils down to the definition of particle and wave. Is a particle “ball-like” and a wave “snake-like”?

We are assuming that a particle strikes the screen to leave a point-like impression. Is that assumption correct? A striking wave will also leave a point-like impression.

The moving particle or wave does not have to change its trajectory if the screen is moved forward. The fringe pattern will still appear because it is the result of a lot of strikes. Little’s assumption, “If one moves the screen the particles follow different trajectories” has no logical basis. The rest of his argument simply falls apart.

There seem to be NO basis for a reverse motion from the screen to particles.

Little says, “Consider first the standard double-slit experiment. This is the basic experiment confirming the wavelike behavior of particles. One sees a wavelike pattern on the screen but only as the result of numerous individual particle events. Each particle is observed to arrive at only one point on the screen.”

.

Wavelike fringe patterns occur due to constructive and destructive interference between two similar waves. The fringe pattern in double-slit experiment does not occur due to such wave interference directly. Instead it is generated by increasing collection of point strikes on a screen.

It is incorrect to assume that point impressions on the screen imply particles striking the screen. A wave striking a screen would also leave a point impression, just like a snake going through a hole in a sheet.
.

Little says, “If one tries to observe particles at any point before or after the slits, or as a particle passes through a slit, one always observes only particles — with a single location — never a wave. Nonetheless, a wavelike pattern appears on the screen (assuming no attempt to observe the particles before they arrive at the screen). So clearly both waves and particles are present. One sees waves and one sees particles, so one has both waves and particles. Yet, as is well known, all attempts to interpret the experiment using separate waves and particles have failed. “

.

When one tries to observe a light wave directly, one only observes a point impression at the location of the interaction of the wave with the instrument. Therefore, a point impression on the measuring instrument does not always imply a particle as assumed above.

A wave-like pattern on the screen does not necessarily imply the presence of waves. Point-like impressions on measuring instruments (this includes the screen) does not necessarily imply the presence of particles.

The conclusion, “So clearly both waves and particles are present” is not so clear. What is clear is the presence of continuous waves and discrete energy interactions.
.

Little says, “To begin to see why, consider the following additional fact about the experiment. Suppose one tries to explain the pattern on the screen with a hypothetical set of particle trajectories. The maxima on the screen might then be explained by particles following the trajectories shown in Fig. 1. However, if the screen is moved to position B, clearly the particles from each slit, and still following those same trajectories, will no longer arrive at the same points on the screen; the particles from one slit will fall somewhere between the points of impact of the particles from the other slit. The pattern would then be washed out. And yet a similar wave pattern is observed at all screen distances.”

It is not necessarily the case that the screen is being struck by particles. It could also be waves striking the screen. The trajectories are not necessarily straight lines without width as being assumed for particles. Trajectories may have wavy pattern giving it width. The movement of screen from A to B will not necessarily wash out the fringe pattern if the wavy pattern compensates for such movement.

Though I get how this can be true, I am trying to visualize what makes the difference between the dot pattern and the interference pattern. 1. Is the interference pattern made up of a collection of dots on the screen?, 2. I do not quite understand how the randomness of the “shots” of electrons being fired from the “gun” occurs. Or why are the electrons arriving at the split screen so randomly striking it?

Little says, “If the particles are assumed to be particles, and if they follow straight lines between the slits and the screen, there is only one conclusion that can be drawn: the trajectories depend on the screen position. If one moves the screen the particles follow different trajectories.”

.

What is missing here is a clear definition of “particle”. At the basis of supposed “particles” all we have are “discrete energy interactions”, which could be caused by waves. Therefore, Little’s conclusion, “If one moves the screen the particles follow different trajectories” is flawed.
.

Per disturbance theory, an electron is a rotational field existing in space, much like a whirlpool existing in water. The edge of the slit also extends a similar field into space. The passing electron shall interact with the electronic field at the edges of the slit. This interaction would be in the form of interference between two disturbances in space.

Such an interaction is likely to extend the disturbance in space in different ways. The rotational core of the electron then hits the screen at the far end. This latter interaction would be a resonance since it emits photons showing where the electron hit.

The other aspects of the disturbance after hitting the screen may reflect back in various ways. The space between the double-slit and the screen would maintain a certain amount of disturbance even when the electrons are sent one by one in a discrete manner.

The situation here is not as simple as water waves passing through double slits. It is much more complicated. But it shows wave interaction because electron is a rotating disturbance in space.
.

Hi Vin.
You said: ‘ an electron is a rotational field existing in space’…
You have given this description before but I have never mentioned that I admire the insight you have displayed.
I would like to add one tidbit that may provide some additional understanding. You may realize this already.
The rotation of the field of which the ‘particle’ consists is not kinetic, it is not an actual movement. It is actually an intention, a personality. Have you ever heard a sound off to one side and you were about to turn your head, but haven’t yet actually made the move? Your thought was to the right or left but there was a moment just before you turned.
Another example is when you are driving your car. There is something to your right which catches your attention, but you have to keep your eyes straight ahead, but part of your attention is to the right. It may have been a sound, it may have been a flash that caught the corner of your eye, but you can’t yet turn and look.
That is the best description I can give for subatomic particle spin. This may have been what you were saying all along, I just didn’t catch it.
Hope this adds something. You are of course right about ‘particles’ being a field with no exact location. Their location only becomes apparent with their interaction and that is only their intended location for the purpose and conditions at hand.
Mark

This is quite a nice audio track. Thank you for sharing it. It is helpful to me to hear you say the concepts out loud. I wonder if the Disturbance Theory can be tied to the metric tensor. Can we correctly say that frequency is related to or is in fact described by or as the metric tensor?

(1) In mathematics, a metric space is a set for which distances between all members of the set are defined. Those distances, taken together, are called a metric on the set.

(2) A metric on a space induces topological properties like open and closed sets, which lead to the study of more abstract topological spaces.
The ultimate property is that of continuity. Values as bounds are then picked up in that continuity.

(3) The most familiar metric space is 3-dimensional Euclidean space. In fact, a “metric” is the generalization of the Euclidean metric arising from the four long-known properties of the Euclidean distance.

(4) The Euclidean metric defines the distance between two points as the length of the straight line segment connecting them. Other metric spaces occur for example in elliptic geometry and hyperbolic geometry, where distance on a sphere measured by angle is a metric, and the hyperboloid model of hyperbolic geometry is used by special relativity as a metric space of velocities.

(1) In mathematics, a metric or distance function is a function that defines a distance between each pair of elements of a set.

(2) A set with a metric is called a metric space.

(3) A metric induces a topology on a set, but not all topologies can be generated by a metric. A topological space whose topology can be described by a metric is called metrizable.

(4) In differential geometry, the word “metric” may refer to a bilinear form that may be defined from the tangent vectors of a differentiable manifold onto a scalar, allowing distances along curves to be determined through integration. It is more properly termed a metric tensor.

In my opinion, the ultimate constraint is that of continuity, which is ascertained mathematically by differentaibility. This constraint may lead to boundary conditions that must be obeyed in a theory. Thus, an electron may have some boundary condition.
.

The electron should not be looked upon as something solid. It is a stable configuration of a rotating field that has a tendency to maintain itself. This field may break apart and then come together from the viewpoint of the conservation and entropy principles.

There is definitely some interaction of the passing electron with the bound electrons at the edges of the slit. It is possible that the passing electron temporarily loses its configuration and then regains it. Now the details of this interaction needs to be worked out.
.

Main criticism seems to be that Little gives no empirical evidence for his theory. Rather than giving the measurements and experiment for his theory, he simply criticizes the extant theory’s spooky effects. This is understandable yet he seems to use more statistical probability to explain his own ideas, and then like Marildi, calls them deterministic when in fact they are conjectures.

I like some of his innovative thinking (reflecting waves) to explain the spooky effects, but it seems he may have not been ready to publish, not ready for peer review. I’m not sure because the math language goes beyond me.

I am troubled by your “snake-like” cross section presenting a dot. Unless you mean that the full diameter along the longitudinal axis of the vortex represents the dot. A snake corkscrewing through a hole doesn’t seem to work because its longitudinal would need to rotate around the “hole.”

That remark has to do with a discrete impression left on the screen by a continuous wave. In double-slit experiment a discrete impression on the screen is interpreted as if a particle (photon or electron) has impacted a screen. In my view, a discrete impression may also be created by a continuous wave interacting with the electronic field of the atoms making up the screen.

I used “snake” as a metaphor. But in truth I am attempting to say that a “particle” at quantum level cannot be visualized as a “ball-like” mass particle that excludes the thought of a continuous extension. An electron need not be visualized as a “ball”. There is a lot going on in that electron phenomenon.

Gravitational Waves have recently been detected from a collision of two black holes, demonstrating the elasticity of spacetime. This shows both Einstein correct in his prediction of them as well as gravitational attraction being a quality of spacetime.

Yes, I know. Is this spacetime? Walking the BB back to its inception, there is conjectured to be a unity. To me, this is the imagination of there being one homogenous thing or point. As inflation occurs, this unity is stretched. This inflation (space) is time? From this stretched unity, matter and energy somehow condenses. According to Disturbance Theory, energy is a discretely disturbed area of this unity. Time, which is a rate of inflation, though variable, seems to be our abstraction of this inflation which we metaphorize as motion.

“Undisturbed space” is theoretical. Both space and time come about as “spacetime” when there is disturbance. This disturbance represents the earliest form of energy.

“Spacetime” is measured in the units of frequency. As this frequency increases, it finally collapses as mass. Discreteness enters in as frequency but there is also continuity among that discreteness. However, a discrete identity does not come about until frequency collapses as mass.

“Mass” is a totally different environment than the earlier “Field” environment. The “spacetime” of field environment can now be separated as “space” and “time” with different units in the mass environment.

The concepts of distance, velocity and acceleration also come about in the mass environment. They do not exist in the field environment.

The “velocity of light” does not exist in field environment. That concept comes about in the mass environment only.

Classical mechanics is the interaction of mass field with spatial field. Cosmology and Quantum mechanics are trying to figure out other interactions between mass (nuclear), electronic, electromagnetic and spatial fields. These interactions need to recognized and categorized properly.
.

After I wrote that question, I continued to think about what you could mean by using that word which would be consistent with your conjectures. It came to me that you might write back something like, “Awareness is that which can be disturbed.” By this, using a mirror-like definition, it means that the ocean is aware of the wind, moon and of earth’s gravity because it is disturbed by them. What do you think of this idea as a general principal of awareness? It can be applied uniformly across the universe and is ubiquitous. As you see, I am taking your Disturbance Theory ideas seriously. Like Michael Faraday’s ideas, it took James C Maxwell to write them and expand them elegantly with mathematics, but they were elegant nonetheless.

My question is an objective one and I never mentioned consciousness, a layer more complicated. Your answer carries my question away from the objective. You throwing human-centric, spiritual, etc. are your own bias, not mine. Or did you not read my post before answering? How much more fundamental than “able to be disturbed” can my definition be? How is that human-centric? You amaze me.

Consciousness comes about when awareness is disturbed. From THE BEGINNING:

(1) There was neither non-existence nor existence then.
(2) There was uniform awareness that appeared as undisturbed space.
(3) There was mere continuity without any distinguishing feature.
(4) There was no name, shape, form or even consciousness.

The fundamental principle is continuity and harmony. This principle underlies all that came later.

.

(1) Disturbance arose in awareness and space.
(2) It was the seed of desire that appeared as time.
(3) Disturbed awareness became consciousness.
(4) Disturbed space became electromagnetism.

It seems that the earliest consciousness appeared as electromagnetism. Desire was buried in it as time.
.